net/mlx5: fix validation of VXLAN/VXLAN-GPE specs
Checks
Commit Message
Trying to create zero spec for vni wasn't allowed, to
avoid matching all packets from previous layer (udp).
This behavior is incorrect, since VXLAN is being identified
through the outer UDP destination port.
Currently, if the user didn't specify outer UDP destination
port the PMD will automatically match only on outer
UDP port of 4798, and if the user want to match on some none
standard port he need to specify it explicitly in the rule.
This removes the limitation of vni spec to be able to match any
vni.
Fixes: 23c1d42c ("net/mlx5: split flow validation to dedicated function")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@mellanox.com>
---
drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 31 -------------------------------
1 file changed, 31 deletions(-)
Comments
From: Raslan Darawsheh
> Trying to create zero spec for vni wasn't allowed, to avoid matching all
> packets from previous layer (udp).
> This behavior is incorrect, since VXLAN is being identified through the outer
> UDP destination port.
>
> Currently, if the user didn't specify outer UDP destination port the PMD will
> automatically match only on outer UDP port of 4798, and if the user want to
> match on some none standard port he need to specify it explicitly in the rule.
>
> This removes the limitation of vni spec to be able to match any vni.
>
> Fixes: 23c1d42c ("net/mlx5: split flow validation to dedicated function")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@mellanox.com>
Acked-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Raslan Darawsheh
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 4:22 PM
> To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Slava Ovsiienko
> <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix validation of VXLAN/VXLAN-GPE
> specs
>
> Trying to create zero spec for vni wasn't allowed, to
> avoid matching all packets from previous layer (udp).
> This behavior is incorrect, since VXLAN is being identified
> through the outer UDP destination port.
>
> Currently, if the user didn't specify outer UDP destination
> port the PMD will automatically match only on outer
> UDP port of 4798, and if the user want to match on some none
> standard port he need to specify it explicitly in the rule.
>
> This removes the limitation of vni spec to be able to match any
> vni.
>
> Fixes: 23c1d42c ("net/mlx5: split flow validation to dedicated function")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@mellanox.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 31 -------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 31 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> index 41072da..2ef6558 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> @@ -1836,7 +1836,6 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan(const struct
> rte_flow_item *item,
> uint32_t vlan_id;
> uint8_t vni[4];
> } id = { .vlan_id = 0, };
> - uint32_t vlan_id = 0;
>
>
> if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_TUNNEL)
> @@ -1863,23 +1862,8 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan(const struct
> rte_flow_item *item,
> return ret;
> if (spec) {
> memcpy(&id.vni[1], spec->vni, 3);
> - vlan_id = id.vlan_id;
> memcpy(&id.vni[1], mask->vni, 3);
> - vlan_id &= id.vlan_id;
> }
> - /*
> - * Tunnel id 0 is equivalent as not adding a VXLAN layer, if
> - * only this layer is defined in the Verbs specification it is
> - * interpreted as wildcard and all packets will match this
> - * rule, if it follows a full stack layer (ex: eth / ipv4 /
> - * udp), all packets matching the layers before will also
> - * match this rule. To avoid such situation, VNI 0 is
> - * currently refused.
> - */
> - if (!vlan_id)
> - return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
> - RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> - "VXLAN vni cannot be 0");
> if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER))
> return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
> RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> @@ -1918,7 +1902,6 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan_gpe(const struct
> rte_flow_item *item,
> uint32_t vlan_id;
> uint8_t vni[4];
> } id = { .vlan_id = 0, };
> - uint32_t vlan_id = 0;
>
> if (!priv->config.l3_vxlan_en)
> return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
> @@ -1956,22 +1939,8 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan_gpe(const struct
> rte_flow_item *item,
> "VxLAN-GPE protocol"
> " not supported");
> memcpy(&id.vni[1], spec->vni, 3);
> - vlan_id = id.vlan_id;
> memcpy(&id.vni[1], mask->vni, 3);
> - vlan_id &= id.vlan_id;
> }
> - /*
> - * Tunnel id 0 is equivalent as not adding a VXLAN layer, if only this
> - * layer is defined in the Verbs specification it is interpreted as
> - * wildcard and all packets will match this rule, if it follows a full
> - * stack layer (ex: eth / ipv4 / udp), all packets matching the layers
> - * before will also match this rule. To avoid such situation, VNI 0
> - * is currently refused.
> - */
> - if (!vlan_id)
> - return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
> - RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> - "VXLAN-GPE vni cannot be 0");
> if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER))
> return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
> RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> --
> 2.7.4
Patch applied to next-net-mlx,
Kindest regards,
Raslan Darawsheh
@@ -1836,7 +1836,6 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan(const struct rte_flow_item *item,
uint32_t vlan_id;
uint8_t vni[4];
} id = { .vlan_id = 0, };
- uint32_t vlan_id = 0;
if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_TUNNEL)
@@ -1863,23 +1862,8 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan(const struct rte_flow_item *item,
return ret;
if (spec) {
memcpy(&id.vni[1], spec->vni, 3);
- vlan_id = id.vlan_id;
memcpy(&id.vni[1], mask->vni, 3);
- vlan_id &= id.vlan_id;
}
- /*
- * Tunnel id 0 is equivalent as not adding a VXLAN layer, if
- * only this layer is defined in the Verbs specification it is
- * interpreted as wildcard and all packets will match this
- * rule, if it follows a full stack layer (ex: eth / ipv4 /
- * udp), all packets matching the layers before will also
- * match this rule. To avoid such situation, VNI 0 is
- * currently refused.
- */
- if (!vlan_id)
- return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
- RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
- "VXLAN vni cannot be 0");
if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER))
return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
@@ -1918,7 +1902,6 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan_gpe(const struct rte_flow_item *item,
uint32_t vlan_id;
uint8_t vni[4];
} id = { .vlan_id = 0, };
- uint32_t vlan_id = 0;
if (!priv->config.l3_vxlan_en)
return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
@@ -1956,22 +1939,8 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan_gpe(const struct rte_flow_item *item,
"VxLAN-GPE protocol"
" not supported");
memcpy(&id.vni[1], spec->vni, 3);
- vlan_id = id.vlan_id;
memcpy(&id.vni[1], mask->vni, 3);
- vlan_id &= id.vlan_id;
}
- /*
- * Tunnel id 0 is equivalent as not adding a VXLAN layer, if only this
- * layer is defined in the Verbs specification it is interpreted as
- * wildcard and all packets will match this rule, if it follows a full
- * stack layer (ex: eth / ipv4 / udp), all packets matching the layers
- * before will also match this rule. To avoid such situation, VNI 0
- * is currently refused.
- */
- if (!vlan_id)
- return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
- RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
- "VXLAN-GPE vni cannot be 0");
if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER))
return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,